Tribunal hears £828,796 in buyer deposits sent to developer as covert sham-marriage advice surfaces
A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Zulfiqar Ali channelled hundreds of thousands of pounds in buyer deposits to a developer that did not own the site—and was later caught on covert recordings discussing sham-marriage routes through the UK immigration system.
Sitting on 12–13 February 2019, the panel—Mrs J. Martineau (chair), Mr J. Evans, Mrs L. Barnett—examined allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) concerning a multi-unit scheme at 87–89 Plashet Road, London. Ali represented himself; David Bennett of Hailsham Chambers appeared for the SRA.
At the outset, the Tribunal noted a significant procedural turn: Ali’s appeal later resulted in the Administrative Court, on 15 October 2019, approving a consent order that quashed the Tribunal’s February 2019 decision and remitted the case for reconsideration. Nonetheless, the Tribunal’s findings on the evidence before it in February 2019 form the basis of the allegations as rehearsed.
On the accounts rules, the SRA said Ali directed client money—including purchaser deposits—into his office account. Evidence showed letters quoting “client bank account” details that in fact led to office banking. Transfers landed in November 2016: £65,973 and £59,290 from one buyer, then £89,172 from another. Ali admitted he should have had a client account and accepted that holding client money in office account breached the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. The Tribunal found Allegation 1.1 proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe SRA’s more explosive case centred on Inner Court, the developer. It said Ali transferred at least £828,796 of buyer deposits to Inner Court despite knowing the company did not own the property. Land Registry checks named a different proprietor. The panel heard how red flags multiplied: a letter from “Chambers” said to prove exchange turned out not to be from solicitors at all; due diligence was scant; and Ali opened a client account only after deposit funds were already flowing. Buyers’ lawyers at JPG did send funds to Ali’s client account; he routinely passed the deposits to Inner Court, deducting £1,000 each time in fees.
Individual cases underlined the risk. One Hong Kong purchaser, Mrs Y, paid £59,290 for a flat she never saw progress on. She told the Tribunal the loss wiped out almost half her husband’s pension. The panel criticised Ali’s attempts to deflect blame onto purchasers’ solicitors, finding that members of the public expect solicitors to safeguard client funds in accordance with the rules.
After weighing the warnings and Ali’s own acceptance that, had he acted for buyers, he would have urged caution, the Tribunal concluded the transactions were “dubious” and bore the hallmarks of fraud. It found Allegation 1.2 proved, holding Ali breached Principles 2 and 6 and failed to achieve Outcome 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. However, it did not find recklessness proved, noting he did not perceive a real risk of permanent loss at the time.
A separate strand came from a surreptitious recording in April 2015. An undercover reporter posing as Client A asked how to remain in the UK. In the transcript aired before the Tribunal, Ali discussed marriage as the “only option left,” entertained paying someone to marry, quoted ballpark costs of £12,000–£13,000, and described preparing paperwork to support a relationship he knew would be bogus. He even sketched what officials might ask—down to details about bedding and rooms—and mused on risks, divorces, and macabre hypotheticals. The SRA said this advice subverted the immigration system, breaching Principles 1, 2 and 6.
Ali challenged the SRA’s reliance on the recording as privileged; the Tribunal rejected that, ruling privilege lay with the client, not the solicitor, and that regulators must be able to use such material to police the profession. He also raised “double jeopardy,” pointing to prior Home Office interest; the Tribunal dismissed that too, stressing the distinct regulatory purpose.
In summary, the Tribunal (in its February 2019 findings) proved the rule-breach on client funds and the “dubious transactions” allegation (minus recklessness), and heard detailed evidence on the sham-marriage advice allegations. Crucially, the Administrative Court later quashed that 2019 decision and sent the case back, leaving the allegations to be reconsidered in full